>HN isn't anti-science. Oh yes it is. We're not just talking about criticisms of individual papers here; this site often has comments disparaging science as a

>HN isn't anti-science. Oh yes it is. We're not just talking about criticisms of individual papers here; this site often has comments disparaging science as a whole, calling it a "new religion", etc. If that isn't anti-science, then there isn't such a thing. Moreover, typical commenters here do not apply evidence, critical thinking, and scientific process appropriately. They usually find something easy to nitpick that gives them the appearance of thinking critically, then they conclude that the research is trash. See: the recent article on caffeine. It's one giant fallacy fallacy masquerading as deep conversation.